[QUOTE=captjacksparrow;194041]The real issue here is actually the acquisition of “good” judgment, however anyone might define the term.
Can one be fully “competent” without possessing good or sound judgment? I would argue that they are 2 sides of the same coin and are therefore inseparable. Possessing technical competence that cannot be effectively applied consistently because of a lack of judgment, to me, falls under the definition of incompetence.
The acquisition of “good” judgment can only come through experience, but how much experience (and of what kind) a given person needs to acquire it is highly variable. Sea time-requirements are simply a somewhat arbitrary minimum standard that we use because, well, we have to start from somewhere and bureaucratic systems require it.
As always, mileage can and will vary. Some people need a lot more experience (read: practice) than others to acquire an equivalent level of judgment, some much less, and for others no amount will ever be enough.
It is not a 2-way relationship. Experience, whether a lot or a little, is absolutely necessary to learn good judgment. But having lots of experience in no way guarantees, or even remotely implies, that any given individual will have acquired the good judgment that true competence requires.[/QUOTE]
I agree. You can do something wrongly for many years and get away with it and call it experience on your CV, but it does not constitute good judgement. (Or good seamanship, which is based on good judgement)
I may have mentioned this before; doing rigmoves in GoT I worked with two Masters on identical boats, with near identical backgrounds and experience. One could do just about anything you asked of him, the other was known as “Captain Chaos”.
[QUOTE=Steamer;194016]That is why there are more than 50 military aircraft lost due to accidents (mostly related to deficiencies in training and inexperience) every year.[/QUOTE]
Are you trying to make a counter argument that having pilots spend more time buzzing around in patterns or hours staring out the window would reduce incidents/accidents?
50 seems a bit high, but I’m not here to debate numbers. What isn’t mentioned in those stats is how many missions are flown successfully AND the military also operates in an inherently more dangerous environment. Also, much of their flying contraptions are old and worn out–and of course we know how wonderful the .mil is at fixing things LOL.
How about this…look up the average age of a blue angel pilot (arguably the “best in the world”).
Also, I don’t drive boats for pay, so I really don’t have much clout on the guys that look out the window. Keeping it moving, on the other hand…
[QUOTE=johnny.dollar;194059]Are you trying to make a counter argument that having pilots spend more time buzzing around in patterns or hours staring out the window would reduce incidents/accidents?[/QUOTE]
Buzzing around the patch or staring out the window is a gross misrepresentation. Read the reports and studies of military accidents, lack of training hours repeatedly doing all of the tasks needed to fly is a huge component of proficiency. When flying hours are cut, either for lack of airworthy airplanes or money to buy fuel, proficiency suffers. Aircraft are lost and people die because they lose skills and judgement.
Think of chief mate time on a tanker or boxboat as training time, over a year or five at sea doing the actual job the mate sees how it is done and learns how to balance the operational aspect with the administrative and how to prioritize.
Fortunately, in real life there is no way in Hell that a tanker or boxboat company is going to make a master out of some mudboat guy who just flew in from New Orleans. About the only chance of that happening is with a certain little ship operator out of Norfolk with a reputation so bad they have to hire off the street and trust to luck.